A Progressive Alamedan

Various writings from a resident of Alameda regarding the political scene. The local perspective of local, state and national politics and a few other odds and ends of local concern. May not be particularly interesting to people outside of the Alameda area.

Name:
Location: Alameda, California, United States

Contact me by sending a message to "dan" followed by the current year at the domain karelia.com

Monday, May 09, 2011

Come See the Amazing Delaine Eastin this Wednesday Night


Back in November, I saw Delaine Eastin, former California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, speak at the E-board meeting of the California Democratic Party.

She absolutely brought down the house. Just an amazing, dynamic, inspiring speaker.

Through my suggestion, she will be coming to this month's meeting of the Alameda Democratic Club. I am really looking forward to hearing her.

She will be speaking about education and California politics. I can't recommend her enough. Please come!

The meeting is THIS WEDNESDAY EVENING at the Alameda Hospital, 2070 Clinton Ave @ Willow in Alameda. Start time: 7 PM. Everybody is welcome, no admission is charged.



(Photo Credit: Tom Torlakson (Yes, him!)

Friday, April 29, 2011

I guess there are other people with my name out there

It was just pointed out to me that somebody has recently been posting comments to local political blogs using my name. I guess that's the disadvantage of having a short and common name. Or, maybe some low-life is trying to impersonate me - it seems like too much of a coincidence.

Unfortunately, there is no way to really confirm identity on the blogosphere.

But I just wanted readers of this blog to be aware that things may not be what they seem, especially if it seems that the person using that name is either spewing nonsense, or engaging in online activities that aren't characteristic of the real me.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

MSNBC - Banksters & Government Exposed FINALLY by Mainstream News!

I know this isn't Alameda-specific, but it's a great introduction to a topic that has been capturing most of my attention lately, moreso than local and state issues. Of course we here in Alameda are all affected by this national (in fact, international issue).

Sunday, March 06, 2011

We Are All Wisconsonites




From Michael Moore's Page

Saturday, January 08, 2011

The results are in....

Unfortunately I didn't not prevail personally at the election today, but many of my slate-mates did. Congratulations especially to Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, Nwamaka Agbo, Jessamyn Sabbag, and Jakada Imani, and also congratulations to the other winners as well. Thanks to everybody who came out to brave the cold weather, and the long lines — especially those who waited patiently while additional ballots were printed out. (They had printed 500 originally; I think there were about 700 votes total -- double last time around!)

Why I'm Running for Delegate Today

If you are reading this blog on its publication date — Saturday the 8th — and you are a registered Democrat, and you live in Alameda, parts of Oakland, or Piedmont — The 16th Assembly District, represented by Sandré Swanson — I hope you can come head over to Laney College's Theatre building today, arriving after 2 PM but before 4 PM, to vote for me, and the progressive slate that I am a part of:

6 Women: Nwamaka AGBO, Pamela DRAKE, Susan HARMAN, Jessamyn SABBAG, Margaret SCHULTZ, Esperanza TERVALON-DAUMONT

6 Men: Sean DUGAR*, Joseph J. GEORGE (Jakada Imani), Abel GUILLEN*, Robert PECK, Sean SULLIVAN*, Dan WOOD

* = additional candidates recommended by the slate

I am also running for the position of EXECUTIVE BOARD. One person from the twelve winning delegates is eligible to become the E-Board representative for our district. As one of the most inveterate delegates in our district, I feel that I'm qualified to step up to this additional level of responsibility. Thus, there will be a second ballot; please write my full name on that additional ballot and turn that in.

But the main reason I'm writing this is to talk about why I'm running. It's very easy to get caught up in the calling, emailing, team-building, endorsement-collecting aspect of running a campaign ... whether it's a big campaign or a tiny campaign like mine. But more important than that is the original reason that a candidate is running in the first place. For me, there are so many reasons to run for delegate, to do what I can to make the California Democratic Party become more progressive.

I am running because the Party should not be helping out those Democrats-In-Name-Only who are just Republicans in disguise, just because they are the incumbents. Democrats stand for something, and when there is a "Democrat" in office who does not stand for something, they should be shown the door. I'm looking at Congresswoman Jane Harman, and at Senator Diane Feinstein, for instance.

I am running because as delegates, we have the ability to vote on which candidates for primary elections get the endorsement of the party. We got to have great candidates like Dave Jones, Kamala Harris, and Debra Bowen on our November ballots due largely to their backing by the Democratic Party in the corresponding June elections.

I am running because, when enough progressives get together and build up a Party Resolution, it's possible for the state party to get a message out that is not being given attention at the national level. For example, the Party's message just over a year ago was a resolution called End the U.S. Occupation & Air War in Afghanistan. This would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

I am running because we all need to put a stop to rampant corporate control of our media, of our politicians, of our government, and of us - including our children.

I am running because we need to put a stop to the powerful, out-of-control military forces. Our entire current military operations are based upon lies. I'm in the middle of an amazing book about the presidency of JFK, and how hard he had to fight against his military advisors' constant pressure upon him to go with a military solution. (It's astonishing that JFK was able to keep us from nuclear annihilation!) Fast forward 50 years of rampant military-industrial-complex growth, and I can imagine that it must be nearly impossible for even the most liberal President to have any control over this. Wikileaks' recent disclosures have shown how horrible things are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there doesn't seem to be any end in site.

(What can we do as mere delegates to the party about this? Only a little at a time, but it's better to try than to throw up our hands!) We have to do something to put an end to our Naqoyqatsi.

I am running because we need to do something about our economy, which is in shambles, and perched on the edge of a precipice. The State of California is close to bankrupt, mostly thanks to Proposition 13, which has protected corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. And thanks to our latest propositions from the November ballot, the legislature has no way to raise new revenues without getting held hostage by the Republicans (who would prefer to see the state budget go down in flames). And things are even worse at the Federal level. Our country is deep in debt; our dollars would be worth nothing if they weren't the international standard — and this artificial support could crumble any time — and there is no end in sight to the hemorrhaging by the military on our budget.

I am running because our health care system is still in a horrible state. The well-publicized, heavily debated congressional reform ended up being just another giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

I am running because we need to put pressure on our President to do actually implement some of the things he promised. [Broken Promises] We still have the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We still have corporate give-aways. We still have torture. We still have the USA PATRIOT act. (You know, it feels like we still have George W. Bush!)

And I am running for so many other reasons. We're running out of time, in our economy, in our climate, in our oil supplies (the other inconvenient truth), in our constitutional freedoms. I want our kids to have a future.

A single delegate who cares about these issues can only do so much. A swarm, however, can be pretty effective. Let's hope that we get a swarm of progressive elected across the state today.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

I'm again running for Delegate to the CA Democratic Party

As I have been doing once every two years since 2005, I am running for delegate to the California Democratic Party. This is a way that activists from the grassroots can have some influence on the largest state Democratic Party in the country. It's sometimes an uphill struggle against the lackluster establishment, but we have had some real victories. I can connect California Democrats' huge November victories back to the energy of the grassroots, and I want to keep that up!

The only way I can actually win is if enough of my neighbors who are registered Democrats come to an event in Oakland (at Laney College) at about 2 PM on Saturday, January 8, and vote for me, in person.

If you are a reader of this blog, living in the 16th Assembly District (represented by Sandré Swanson — Alameda, Piedmont, and about half of Oakland), I hope I can count on your support. [Not sure what your district is?] If you can definitely or maybe come to vote for me, please Email me your RSVP so I will know to expect you.

This is my candidacy statement:

I have been a delegate for the last six years, and I wish to continue in bringing a progressive voice to the California Democratic Party. I will resume my membership of the Progressive Caucus and also the very progressive Women's Caucus. I've been active in a number of campaigns, and organizations like DFA and the CADC. I have contributed resolutions and additions to the CDP's platform document to make sure that the party has a strong message. We must hold Democrats accountable to these principles, and support progressive candidates, even if that means challenging incumbent Democrats who have slithered too far to the right. I am passionate about a number of issues including election integrity, reining in out- of-control corporations, exposing corporate-owned media censorship, and ending our country's state of warfare based on lies. Also, we need to bring in more funding for the Democratic Party from small donors, so it's not beholden to PACs and rich contributors. (That's why I'm a proud member of the DEM2012 program!) Since communication with the people I represent is important, I use my 300-person email list and my blog at http://progala.blogspot.com to get the word out.


Every Vote Counts! Two years ago when the election meeting was at Alameda Hospital, I was probably overconfident in my chances of winning, and I wound up tieing for the last slot, and then I lost the coin flip! (Our district was the most competitive district in the entire state!) So if you want to see the California Democratic Party head in a progressive direction, please don't assume that I have this "in the bag" like some of my friends did last time around! :-)

If you are willing to invest an hour or so, about 2-3 PM, on Saturday January 8th, please mark your calendar, and be sure to email me your RSVP.

This is a very small campaign, but all that means is that every single vote counts in a BIG way. I really hope you can come out to help, and ideally even drag along a spouse, neighbor, or friend who shares your progressive values to come vote as well — and to share the ride and thus help the environment :-)

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts, in the comments or by emailing me.


May you have a Happy New Year!





RSVP here [Note: this is a temporary email address]

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

California Democratic E-Board Rundown

Freshly energized from the November elections, and with local elections for delegates to the California Democratic Party just around the corner, I decided to attend the party's Executive Board meeting in Sacramento this past weekend. Most delegates only attend the annual convention. (Each district has a representative to send to the E-Board meetings as well.) I've wanted to see what it was like, so I attended as an observer.

The general session, as you would expect, was extremely up-beat. While nationally, Democrats suffered, the Red Invasion didn't make it here. If the current trend continues, with Kamala Harris with a growing lead over Republican Steve Cooley, it will be a Democratic Party sweep of the statewide offices. In spite of being outrageously outspent (to the tune of $265 million) by the Republicans, Brown and Boxer held their own. Not only did California hold back the Republicans, several new seats turned blue, such as the effervescent Dr. Richard Pan, who will be the new assemblymember in my parents' district.

One of the highlights of the debrief was the results of the DEM2010 program that Hilary Crosby created. D.E.M. stands for "Donate Every Month" and the idea is that it's a way to fund the party from a large number of small, monthly donations from ordinary people like you and me, rather than big donations from PACs and CEOs. Because of DEM2010, the party was able to get door-hangers (long-requested, and never quite available in years past) created and distributed across the state, to help Democrats figure out the party's endorsements. (Yes, it's obvious when there is a "D" next to a person's name, but the non-partisan, Democrat-endorsed Tom Torlakson cruised into victory as well.)

(I joined DEM2010 shortly after it started, because I would rather have the party be fueled by the grassroots rather than big donors. It's just about to transition to "DEM2012" but the goals will be the same as we approach the 2012 elections. Maybe I can convince you to contribute a few bucks a month, to help toward the goal of making the Democratic Party's biggest contributor be the grassroots?)

I was also pleased to hear that the staff of the state party going to be trying to start a new program, during the times between election cycles, of getting the message out about what it means to be a Democrat. If they can actually do this right — get some advice from George Lakoff, for instance — this could have some real long-term benefits.

Part of a convention or E-board weekend entails going to caucus meetings. I've tried a few different groups over six years that I've been a delegate, and at this point I've found two that are a good match for me.

The first one, perhaps surprisingly, is the Women's Caucus. No, it's not just for women! I helped my friend Karen Weinstein run for chair of that caucus two years ago, and she turned what had been described as a dreadful, low-key group into an active, progressive group. This meeting featured a panel discussion by recent female candidates for office from around the state; the highlight was Oakland's mayor-elect Jean Quan. She gave some fascinating insights on running a campaign with the Ranked-Choice Voting system. (See sidebar.)

Jean Quan's insights on RCV

  1. A longer campaign season (bypassing a June primary) gives an opportunity to get into the issues
  2. Less money spent, since it's one campaign
  3. It's more democratic, since many more people vote in the November
  4. It makes you build coalitions (e.g. asking for the second-choice vote if somebody is already supporting another candidate; suggesting a second choice.)
We also got to hear a presentation by Deliane Eastin, the former California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Wow, this is one progressive, impressive lady. Though she was glad to see the Democratic do well in this election, she did not pull any punches when it came to pointing out flaws and problems in our country and in the Democratic Party. She is somebody that I (and several others, it turns out) would like to see become chairperson of the California Democrats!

The Progressive Caucus was, not surprisingly, the political highlight of the weekend. It was also a fresh (albeit somewhat depressing) antidote to the giddy victory dance of the general session. We were reminded that with the passage of Proposition 25, the state legislature can now pass a budget with a simple majority, no longer subject to being held hostage by the Republican minority. However, a two-thirds vote is required to raise taxes, and with the passage of Proposition 26, the same thing goes for fees. So now we have a $25 Billion hole in an $80 Billion budget. And, not to mention, a new governor who promised no tax increases without a "vote of the people," so even if the legislature was likely to somehow come up with new sources of revenues, he'd likely veto it.

California is in deep.

We also heard some analysis of the Democratic Party doldrums around the country, and I think I agree with what I heard. Political activist Norman Solomon pointed out the ways that Obama is doing damage to the Democratic Party (and to the country) — he focused on the "deficit commission" that Obama created to essentially dismantle the New Deal. He also spoke about the "warfare state" that the country has become.

It was certainly an interesting and energizing weekend. Perhaps too energizing — There are so many things that need to be done and I feel like I'm being pulled in multiple directions. Well, I'll start out by running for the Delegate position again, and bring along as many progressive activists as I can in the process. The caucus meeting for this will be in early January, probably in Oakland, and I will be asking you (if you are registered Democrat living in the 16h Assembly district, represented by Sandré Swanson) to come out and vote for me!

Friday, November 05, 2010

The Impact of Ranked Choice Voting

Tonight, the surprising news in the Oakland election is that even though Don Perata appeared to be in the lead, the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) system — used in Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro — has caused Jean Quan to be the winner, if the numbers stay steady.

This is a huge deal, and it took me a while to wrap my head around how it came about.

Up until now, I have thought of RCV as a way to let people avoid "throwing away" their vote in a race with long-shot participants. For instance, let's say that you are a Green at heart, so you would vote the for Green candidate (such as Ralph Nader in 2000) but put the Democrat as your second choice. Then, once the Green Party votes (and other minority votes) are transferred away, the combined first and second choice votes might affect the race. In 2000, that might have allowed Al Gore to win, for example.

But the impact in Oakland is even more stunning. It allowed the race to have plenty of candidates, and people could vote for the top three candidates that they would prefer. If their top choice didn't make it, then their vote would count toward their second, and possibly even their third choice.

It appeared that a lot of people who voted for Kaplan, who was in third place initially and also after the other candidates were eliminated, chose Quan as their next choice over Perata by a three to one factor. That meant that when Kaplan was eliminated in the tenth round, this put Quan over the top, giving her the majority.

This is way different from the Ralph Nader scenario I mentioned earlier. Is this some kind of sham? Didn't more people choose Perata? How does Quan get to win when Perata got more votes?

The ranked choice method is, literally, a run-off election. Remember, Perata didn't get a majority. So the instant run-off allows voters to choose between the top two vote-getters. More Oaklanders chose Quan than Perata, so she will be the winner.

Alameda's Turn?

We are surrounded by cities with RCV in their municipal elections, so maybe it's time for us to get on board too. Our Mayor-Elect was not elected with a majority, causing some people to gripe about it, but that is the way it currently works. What if our elections functioned similarly? The results we have now might not be the same.

For instance, let's take a hypothetical case with the city council. We had a crowded race this year. We had several great candidates, but there were certainly those who chose to vote "strategically" and not risk "throwing their vote away" on a candidate that they didn't think would likely win. For instance, John Knox White avoided any "honorable mentions" in his endorsements as Lauren Do and I did, because he didn't want to reduce the number of votes for the front-runner candidates on the "Democratic" side of the race.

If we had RCV, this wouldn't have been necessary. Somebody could have chosen, say, Jeff Mitchell as their first choice, with Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft as their second choice, and Rob Bonta as their third choice, and even if their first two choices didn't make it, their vote would help Bonta rather than be eliminated (bringing somebody like Jean Sweeney closer to being elected).

It also might have helped other candidates do better and even affect the final outcome. I actually tried running a hypothetical scenario starting with numbers that are similar to the current totals, and imagined elimination based on the dynamics of the election.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but here is a possible scenario I played with, using familiar names and imaginary rankings, coming in after all but the top four are eliminated. Bonta and Tam might be leading with 9800 votes and 8900 votes respectively, sharing most of the transfer from Jensen and Ezzy Ashcraft. Johnson and Sweeney would come in next with 6900 and 6700 votes respectively. But then, with Sweeney eliminated, I would guess about half of her votes would transfer to Johnson and the other half would be "exhausted" as they say — in other words, no second choice. That would bring Johnson into the top two right alongside Bonta. That would definitively eliminate Tam, and while we could imagine a lot of her votes transferring to the other candidates, it wouldn't really matter since it's the top two we need.

So from my scenario, Bonta and Johnson would be the definitive winners in the election, with Johnson getting her solid second place (as opposed to the razor-thin lead over Tam in the real world results) due to cross-over from the Sweeney voters.

Top 6Elim JensenTop 5Elim EzzyTop 4Elim SweeneyTop 3
Bonta71007007800200098001009900
Johnson62002006400500690030009900
Tam61008006900200089001009000
Sweeney6600100670006700-6700
Ezzy Ashcraft43006004900-4900
Jensen2600-2400


Of course, things could be different as well. I can imagine a scenario where Tam got more second- and third-choice votes to make her the highest or second-highest vote-getter. But then Sweeney's elimination would bring Johnson into first or second place, so she would end up on the council.

It's interesting that all of the scenarios that I run, we still end up with Johnson on the council.

The other insight I've gotten is that, for better or for worse, RCV (or at least its specific variation, Instant run-off voting, used in Alameda County — there are other approaches) seems to do well at clustering what I will call "teams" for lack of a better term. If you have two strong and separate ideologies in a race, you will probably end up with one representative in the final pick in the top two when the rest of the candidates have been eliminated.

That's how in Oakland, Quan and Kaplan essentially were part of the "Not Don Perata" team, and when you added their votes together, their winning team representative beat out The Don. In Alameda, a city council race with RCV might have given somebody from the Johnson/Sweeney mindset a seat, and somebody from the Tam/Bonta mindset a seat as well. Having RCV might actually affect campaign strategies; I heard that Kaplan and Quan were encouraging their supporters to choose their counterpart on the "Not Don" team as second choice. A combination of a slate and a competition!

The Mayoral race in Alameda would have have been interesting, and could have turned out different, too. It's hard to tell. The elimination of votes for Kahn and Daysog could have transferred any way, perhaps divided equally. A lot of DeHaan's votes might have transferred to Matarrese, making him the winner (just like Kaplan did to put Quan over the top). Then again, DeHaan and Matarrese were very close, and if Matarrese were eliminated by being in third place, he might transfer enough votes to Gilmore to make her the winner. Or maybe not.

Clearly, there is no way to know what might have happened with this election — this was for entertainment purposes only. However, I think it would be a good idea to consider having Alameda switch to this system for the future. I think that it would make the elections more representative (in spite of perhaps not electing my favorite candidates), but more importantly, I think it would attract more qualified candidates, and encourage people to vote for their favorite candidates while still being able to vote for "back-up" candidates in case their top choice didn't make it.

What do you think?

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Lessons from the Election

So many sweet victories and so many sad losses. What a mixed bag of an election!

Local Results

I have never seen such a divisive local campaign season in the dozen years I've lived in Alameda. So much mud-slinging from some candidates and their supporters, outside interference from disgraced corporations, and accusations of corruption.

Yet somehow, the candidates who focused on the positive managed to do pretty well. I am very pleased that Marie Gilmore will be our next mayor, by quite a large margin over Matarrese and DeHaan. I think she will do very well. It won't be hard to improve upon the do-nothing reign of Beverly Johnson, who unfortunately managed to come in second (at least, as of this writing while we wait for the last mail-in ballots to be counted) with her high name recognition overpowering her lack of a serious campaign. Rob Bonta ran a positive and energetic campaign, and got the highest vote count, so he will be our new Vice-Mayor for the next two years.

I'm happy to see that Lena Tam will be returning for another appointed half-term; hopefully the mist will have cleared by the time she is ready for her 2012 council campaign if she is interested in continuing. I only wish that Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, who is extremely qualified for city council, will try for the "third time's a charm" approach and throw her hat in the ring early in the 2012 season so she can rack up some well-deserved endorsements from the groups (e.g. unions, Democratic clubs) that gave Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam such a boost.

Of course, there are those in Alameda who are unsatisfied, and who are convinced that SunCal has won this election. A commenter on Lauren Do's blog summed it up well: "Gilmore, Bonta and Tam will have to work very hard to prove they owe SunCal nothing, and as we know, proving a negative is almost impossible." For those in Alameda who have shown that they believe in "Guilty until proven innocent," it will be hard to erase those expectations.

The other big news locally is Robert Raburn's huge victory over incumbent Carole Ward Allen. I had a good feeling that Alamedans would be voting for Robert in high numbers, but it's clear that his campaign and his message resonated throughout the district. Robert stopped by the tally-watching/victory party last night in Alameda, where almost all of the local winning candidates eventually found themselves, entering the room to a thunderous round of applause.



(Note: My son, Alameda's youngest political wonk, gathered up these folks for a group photo and took the above picture...)

State Propositions

On the other hand, I wasn't too pleased with the state propositions. At least we managed to defeat Proposition 23, the worst of them. However, the progressive Proposition 19 didn't make it — no surprise considering there was no institutional support behind it. And the passage of 26 is going to be bad news for California. Hopefully we can figure out a way out of it.

California Offices

On the other hand, Democrats did great in the California offices. Values defeated dollars when we kept Barbara Boxer and elected Brown, despite the millions spent by Fiorina and Whitman. The rest of the state officeholders did well, too. I'm crossing my fingers that Kamala Harris (pictured) manages to stay ahead of her challenger when the last of the votes are finally counted over the next few days. She'll be a dynamite Attorney General.

Nationally, a Disaster

On the other hand... (channeling Fiddler on the Roof here...)

I think Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, summed it up best:

The biggest lesson from last night is actually pretty simple. For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year.

One possible bright spot is that our neighboring congressman Jerry McNerney appears to have defeated his challenger. But only by 121 votes. There will probably be recounts and late additions to the count, so this is a nail-biter.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

A Must-Read: BART Board Candidate Forum Recap, Part 1

A great chance to watch the three candidates for BART Board, district 4, answer questions. The commentary comes to the same conclusions that I have ... and that you will probably too!

Check it out here.


The video of the BART board being raked over the coals by Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks for their inaction on the 2009 BART shooting — and incumbent Carole Ward Allen throwing a hissy fit and walking out during the scolding is astonishing. It's worth excerpting here.

Why would anybody want this kind of "leadership" of BART?

Friday, October 22, 2010

Finishing up the ballot

This morning I actually filled out my ballot. (So robots, feel free to stop calling now, OK?)

I've already posted my recommendations on the propositions, BART Board (Robert Raburn), the Alameda offices, and the state/regional offices.

There are a few races that I haven't covered yet, so I'll post my thoughts here. I don't have such strong feelings, so I'll link to some other endorsements in a few cases.

First off, I recommend Victoria Kolakowski for Superior Court Judge. I'm not sure what happened to her campaign since the June primary when she won the plurality but not a needed majority. Her competitor Creighton seems to be running a strong campaign, at least here in Alameda, so I don't know how she will fare. Anyhow, I saw her and her (at the time) two competitors speak at a forum before the June primary, and I was very impressed by her … and not that impressed by the others. She is extremely smart, experienced, and progressive. She garnered the Democratic Club endorsement, and mine as well. Some people I know are pointing out how her election would be historic in the LGBT community, but that kind of thinking doesn't really carry much weight for me — I really prefer the best person for the job, not a token. Anyhow, I think she's our best choice. Read more about her in the Living in the O endorsements. The Alameda County Green Party has a good write-up on her as well; in spite of my earlier criticism for the Alameda branch's write-ups, I think that their research on the race was thorough and well-written. [PDF download; see page 15.)

Regarding the Judicial Yes/No votes: I have not heard about any controversial choices this time around, so if you have the time, it should be OK to vote Yes. Or, leave it blank and let others decide.

Alameda School Board: Since i am not that familiar with the School District, I am going to just go with the recommendations of most of the local Democrats on this one; I'm voting for Sherratt and Mike McMahon. I know Mike and consider him to be an asset to the school board (as well as the Alameda Democratic Club, where he serves as treasurer).

AC Transit: I can recommend Elsa Ortiz; she's been an asset to AC Transit since she joined the board a few years ago. I don't know much about Joel Young, but he did get the City of Alameda Democratic Club endorsement.

For the Hospital Board, I was quite impressed by Stewart Chen, and only somewhat with Leah Williams, when I heard them at a recent forum. (Those two got the Democratic Club endorsement.) I want to warn about Elliot Gorelick: This is a candidate who wants to close down the hospital instead of making improvements. He has a chip on his shoulder the size of Rhode Island. While I would entertain a sunset of the hospital district, I — and I"m sure you — don't want to see the hospital itself close!

Be sure to turn page 2 of your ballot over, and vote for Measure F. It's easy to miss!

And if you are mailing in your ballot, put your 78 cents postage on the envelope!

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Non-Political: Amazing Halloween Front Yard

Apologies for venturing into the purely non-political realm (though the previous post did a bit of that) but this was too cool not so share.

Be sure to swing by the place on Santa Clara Ave. that is just a bit West from Willow Avenue some evening as soon as you can (before any weather or "hey you kids off my lawn" damage gets done) — There is the most amazing Halloween yard display I have ever seen. You need to stay a few minutes to soak in all of the subtleties; it is not just a static display, but moving and, in one case, somewhat interactive.

It's cool during the day, but amazing when it's dark.

Trust me — don't miss this.

Here's a preview (click to enlarge); it came out amazingly well for a non-photographer like me!

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Signs of the Times

On a school-pickup errand this afternoon, I happened to bike by a house that I think somebody mentioned in the comments of Lauren Do's blog.

Somebody who can't make up their mind? Or perhaps they are happy with any of the above? How will the person who lives here vote?



Further along on my trip, I got a good shot of the Halloween signs in the window at the USA Kung Fu Studio on Park Street:



Update: Found this Flickr Set of the signs around town. The last one is probably the scariest! :-)

Slideshow for your convenience:

78-cent, Triple Postage Required, Unless...


Just a friendly reminder prompted by a tweet: The ballot weighs more than one ounce, so you will need double postage (78 cents or more) for mailing back your ballot.

However, I should note that if you are voting for Meg Whitman as Governor, you do not need any postage, thanks to a generous ($32 Million!) donation to the California Postal Commission by the Whitman campaign. Just write "Whitman" in the place where your stamp should go.

Remember, this offer is valid only for Whitman voters. All others, be sure to use 78¢ or more.

And, thanks to the generosity of the Fiorina campaign, voters who choose Carly over Barbara Boxer will be express-counted, which means that you can return your ballot up to one week after the normal receipt deadline. If you are voting for Fiorina, just mail in your ballot between November 3 and November 8, 2010.

Voters for Barbara Boxer, however, must send in their ballot early enough to be received by Election Day, November 2. So pop it in the mail by Friday the 29th to be safe.